Decision Date: 11/30/95 Archive Date:
12/01/95
DOCKET NO. 94-00 347 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St.
Petersburg, Florida
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease and bronchitis.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: AMVETS
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
C.A. Skow, Associate Counsel
REMANDThe appellant served on active duty from January 1963
to April 1983.This matter came before the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (the Board) on appeal from an April 1993 rating
decision of the St. Petersburg, Florida, Department of
Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO).
The appellant contends that he developed chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease and bronchitis as a result of exposure to
toxic chemicals in service. He reportedly served as an air
freight specialist during the Vietnam conflict and was
exposed to hazardous chemicals without the benefit of safety
training or equipment.
A review of the evidence of records discloses that the
appellant had complaints of persistent cough in service. He
was diagnosed with several conditions during service to
include upper respiratory infections, atelectasis of the
right lower lobe, and pneumonia.
Post service, private and service department treatment
records dated from March 1983 to December 1992 reflect that,
beginning in December 1985, the appellant had various
respiratory difficulties which were diagnosed as chronic
bronchitis, an upper respiratory infection, and pneumonia.
In October 1989, the appellant was first diagnosed with
chronic pulmonary obstructive disease.
Report of VA examination dated July 1983 is negative for
complaints, findings, or manifestation of a respiratory
disorder. On VA examination in June 1986, the appellant
complained of cough with phlegm. Respiratory examination
revealed no evidence of acute infectious process. Report of
VA examination dated April 1989 is negative for complaints,
findings, or manifestations of a respiratory disorder.
A recent VA examination to determine whether or not there is
an etiological relationship between the respiratory
conditions noted in service and the appellant's current
respiratory disorder(s) has not been conducted. We note
that the Board may not rely on its own unsubstantiated
medical conclusions; its findings must be supported by
independent medical evidence. See Colvin v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 171 (1990).
In view of the above, the Board finds that the medical
evidence is inadequate and that the VA has not fulfilled its
duty to assist. The VA's duty to assist in the development
of claims includes providing a medical examination when the
medical evidence of record is inadequate. Green v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121 (1990). Where the medical
evidence is clearly inadequate, remand is required. See
Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990).
Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to VARO for the following
action.
1. The appellant should be afforded a VA examination by a
pulmonary specialist to determine the nature and severity of
his claimed respiratory disorder. The claims folder should
be reviewed by the examiner prior to the examination. All
indicated tests should be conducted to include a pulmonary
function study. All pulmonary pathology should be
identified and the examiner should clearly indicate whether
the disorder(s) shown on the recent examination is
etiologically related to the respiratory conditions noted in
service or to any chemical exposure in service. A complete
rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided.
2. After the development requested above has been completed
to the extent possible, VARO should again review the record.
If any benefit sought on appeal, for which a notice of
disagreement has been filed, remains denied, the appellant
and representative should be furnished a supplemental
statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond
thereto.
Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in
order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate
outcome of this case. The appellant need take no action
unless otherwise notified.
HOLLY E. MOEHLMANN
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740,
___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board
to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United
States Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38
C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1994).
- 2 -